Emmert-Stamm v. Knight

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Hon.
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.

The
petition of Dustin Emmert-Stamm for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
CIC 17-03-0231. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Emmert-Stamm's habeas petition must be
denied.

A.
Overview

Prisoners
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits
without due process. Cochran v. Buss,381 F.3d 637,
639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The due process
requirement is satisfied with the issuance of advance written
notice of the charges, a limited opportunity to present
evidence to an impartial decision-maker, a written statement
articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the
evidence justifying it, and “some evidence in the
record” to support the finding of guilt.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539,
570-71 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677
(7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652
(7th Cir. 2000).

B.
The Disciplinary Proceeding

On
March 16, 2017, Officer Vincent wrote a Conduct Report
charging Mr. Emmert-Stamm with B-202, possession of a
controlled substance. Dkt. 8-1. The Conduct Report states:

On 03-16-2017 at approximately 11:20 pm I Ofc. J. Vincent was
conducting a pipe check when I found Offender Emmert-Stamm,
Dustin #200710/13A-4D was in the wrong cell. When I went to
tell him to go back to his cell I noticed he had an object in
his hand believed to be a spice cigarette. I ordered the
offender to give me the object and he complied.

Id. Officer Vincent completed an Evidence Record
that noted that he had confiscated a piece of brown paper
containing smaller pieces of white paper rolled up in
cigarette form. Dkt. 8-3 at 4. Officer Vincent also completed
a Notice of Property, listing “1 piece of brown paper
containing smaller pieces of white paper rolled up in
cigarette form, ” which Mr. Emmert-Stamm signed. Dkt.
8-3 at 5.

Mr.
Emmert-Stamm was notified of the charge on March 23, 2017,
when he received the Screening Report. Dkt. 8-2 at 1. He
pleaded not guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate,
and did not request any physical evidence. Id. He
requested Maurice Brownlee as a witness to answer “Is
this your object found in your room?” Id.
Maurice Brownlee submitted a witness statement in response
stating, “yes the brown wraps were mine.” Dkt.
8-3 at 2.

The
prison disciplinary hearing was held on April 5, 2017.
According to the notes from the hearing, Mr. Emmert-Stamm
stated, “It wasn't mine, they were his.” Dkt.
8-3. Based on the staff reports, Mr. Emmert-Stamm's
statement, and the picture of the physical evidence, the
hearing officer found Mr. Emmert-Stamm guilty of B-202,
possession of controlled substance. The sanctions imposed
included thirty days of earned-credit-time deprivation.

Mr.
Emmert-Stamm appealed to the Facility Head and the Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC) Final Reviewing Authority,
both of which were denied. He then brought this petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

C.
Analysis

In his
petition, Mr. Emmert-Stamm asserts ten grounds to challenge
his prison disciplinary conviction: (1) denial of witness;
(2) denial of evidence; (3) denial of right to properly
prepare defense; (4) denial of right to lay advocate; (5)
denial of right to exculpatory evidence; (6) denial of right
to a fair hearing; (7) sufficiency of the evidence; (8)
denial of right to be heard by an impartial decision maker;
(9) denial of right to a copy of the finding of facts; and
(10) cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference
related to his appeal. Dkt. 1. The respondent argues that Mr.
Emmert-Stamm failed to appeal on certain grounds, and that
his arguments lack merit. Dkt. 8. In reply, Mr. Emmert-Stamm
does not respond regarding his failure to exhaust, and
elaborates on his previously raised grounds. Dkt. 9.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.
Failu ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.